Is colonialism not the precondition for "neo-liberal globalism"? In any case I would argue in any case the logical conclusion of colonialism is globalism, a lever arm and a gear acting on the same system. I would also posit in just about any form it's a bad idea, Neo-liberal or Communist...
Not to mention the fact that the IMF (International Monetary Fund) is the posterchild institution forwarding the Neo-liberal Gloablist agenda.
I’m no expert on this (don’t know if I believe it) but the argument I’ve heard framed is that the neo-liberal approach is a direct reaction to colonialism. So in that sense sure it’s a precondition. Like being sick is a precondition for getting cured.
The idea being that global trade should act as a mutually beneficial agreement without needing force of arms, trade protection or extractive colonial policies. Rather than 1 party sucking all the resources from another in a zero sum way.
It's "extractive colonial policies" obfuscated through tools of finance, where force of arms has been a reality in some cases, in others there are different but nonetheless serious coercive threats, sometimes a little bit of both (plausible deniability, nice). As far as determining whether or not it's single sided, if you're calculating with something as primitive as Pareto efficiency or something equally hamfisted, yes, sure, everyone benefits, some by literal pennies and others by many millions of dollars. It's very much one sided from any [reasonable] moral perspective, at least any moral perspective that hopes to treat humans with any semblance of dignity.
A lot of the pretenses developed nations use to intervene in the affairs of the "Global South" have their roots in colonialism as evinced by the grandparent.
I have no position on your argument other than those examples aren’t making it for you.